[Summit] Overnight Parking

[Andrew Nosal]

 > The problem isn't Mr. and Mrs. Luxmoore.

Still unexplained: why a fair minded person should accept Mr. and 
Mrs. Luxmoore (and scores of other equally blameless folks) having to 
deal with easily solvable parking problems because the ban MIGHT act 
to prevent other problems they have no hand in creating.

 > I take it that you don't live next to one of these properties.

Hey that's getting personal.  Nevertheless, today,  no I do not, but 
I certainly have lived next to exasperating neigbors here and 
elsewhere.  Through it all, I thought the parking ban was a bad 
law.  I am sorry if you are unluckier than most when it comes to who 
lives next door.  This is unfair, but the remedy is not more unfairness.

Why so much faith in the parking ban in light of its ongoing failure 
to do what you wish it would do, eliminate misbehavior at 105 Fourth 
Street?  The assumption that ending the ban would increase the 
misbehavior could well be incorrect.  Quite possibly, the landlord 
will happily find himself no longer compelled to rent to that class 
of people which has no choice but dwell where the parking is cramped 
and the yard is ugly.  Without issues caused by the parking ban, the 
building's value might rise enough to motivate him to sell.  Quite 
possibly as well, there will be no change in how the latest bunch of 
tenants at 105 Fourth Street behave, but a lot of other folks in the 
neighborhood will be better off.